Interesting Conversation With A Glock Armorer

[SmokinFool]

I did a quick search and didn't see this issue addressed, so I thought I would pass this along.

I was in one of my LGS's yesterday, and while I was there I looked at their stock of Glocks. I asked one of the sales guys about impressions of the Gen4's. He said I should talk to Travis, another sales guy, who just went through Glock Armorer training. So I went and asked Travis about it, and he got a frown on his face and told me the quality is going downhill. Apparently, Glock is starting to use some mim parts in their Gen4's, and that they are seeing more Glocks coming in for repairs than they used to. He also said that some of Glock's replacement parts will soon also be mim for all models, not just for Gen4's. I felt a little better when he said that Glock will continue to make Gen3s concurrently with the Gen4's, and that there is no plan to discontinue the Gen3's at all. My good feeling didn't last long though, because he told me that they will switch over to mim parts for the Gen3's as well.

I was pretty bummed, as I was looking forward to picking up a Gen4 G20 within the next few months. The main reason I was looking for a Gen4 is because of the interchangeable backstraps. So, I guess I'll be looking for a Gen3 G20 SF instead. The real bummer of it all is we won't be able to get decent replacement parts any more after they complete the switchover to mim.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ejes]

Nothing is wrong with MIM if done properly. MIM is in more firearms than you'd care to know if you are worried about it. I've been a Glock certified armorer for many years; Glock certified armorers are not where you should get information about Glock design(s), company management or metallurgy. Armorers are there to inspect firearms for proper function and to replace parts to return them to a serviceable condition with factory parts. More rumors are started in Glock armorer classes, by Glock armorer instructors and by Glock armorers than anywhere in "Glockdom". Glock has used MIM in certain parts since 2009 I believe; but I may be wrong, and I'm a Glock certified armorer. When parts start breaking into little pieces, I'll complain about MIM, until then, much ado about nothing.

[Crowman]

If what you are stating is true the die hard "Glock Is The Only One" fan club members will be in tears.

[SmokinFool]

Nothing is wrong with MIM if done properly. MIM is in more firearms than you'd care to know if you are worried about it. I've been a Glock certified armorer for many years; Glock certified armorers are not where you should get information about Glock design(s), company management or metallurgy. Armorers are there to inspect firearms for proper function and to replace parts to return them to a serviceable condition with factory parts. More rumors are started in Glock armorer classes than anywhere in "Glockdom". Glock has used MIM in certain parts since 2009 I believe; but I may be wrong, and I'm a Glock certified armorer. When parts start breaking into little pieces, I'll complain about MIM, until then, much ado about nothing.

If what he told me is accurate, more Gen4 Glocks have been coming in for repair than Gen3's. This may indicate that Glock hasn't perfected the mim process yet. What parts are already mim? You have me curious now.

[SmokinFool]

If what you are stating is true the die hard "Glock Is The Only One" fan club members will be in tears.

I suspect you're right about that.

[QKShooter]

I'm not a GLOCK guy so none of this MIM (Marshmallow Imitating Metal) in GLOCK firearms affects me personally.

I believe that in 2009 GLOCK started making the the locking block, firing pin, and extractor using the MIM process.

Possibly there are more MIM parts in the latest Generation? I have absolutely no idea.

If MIM parts in firearms truly bothers you then it's likely that some aftermarket part manufacturer "out there" is replicating those parts in either high quality Investment Cast or Machined From Bar Stock.

So...buy aftermarket parts that are not MIM and simply switch them out should you see MIM as being possibly problematic.

I have a long time hatred of MIM which dates back to the very early years of MIM usage in firearms & that was back when MIM parts truly were causing a high percentage of firearm failure.

The process has improved greatly since then but, (unfounded or not) I still hate the damn stuff so none of my personal or self-defense firearms contain any MIM parts.

Like it or not though MIM is the wave of the present & future for firearm manufacturing and many gun makers are now using lots of MIM in their firearms.

[SmokinFool]

I'm not a GLOCK guy so none of this MIM (Marshmallow Imitating Metal) in GLOCK firearms affects me personally.

I believe that in 2009 GLOCK started making the the locking block, firing pin, and extractor using the MIM process.

Possibly there are more MIM parts in the latest Generation? I have absolutely no idea.

If MIM parts in firearms truly bothers you then it's likely that some aftermarket part manufacturer "out there" is replicating those parts in either high quality Investment Cast or Machined From Bar Stock.

So...buy aftermarket parts that are not MIM and simply switch them out should you see MIM as being possibly problematic.

I have a long time hatred of MIM which dates back to the very early years of MIM usage in firearms & that was back when MIM parts truly were causing a high percentage of firearm failure.

The process has improved greatly since then but, (unfounded or not) I still hate the damn stuff so none of my personal or self-defense firearms contain any MIM parts.

Like it or not though MIM is the wave of the present & future for firearm manufacturing and many gun makers are now using lots of MIM in their firearms.

Unfortunately I think you're right. I was surprised at my response to the news, since the Kimbers I own also use some MIM parts and I have had zero problems with them. I think what bothered me was that he said Gen4 Glocks have been returning for repair at a higher rate than Gen 3's. I guess it could be for a reason other than the MIM parts.

[ScottM]

1. There are still plenty of older generation Glock's that are 'pre-mim' that can be had. Buy a spare gun or two.

2. I'm not worried because Glock parts rarely break in the first place.

[Chevy-SS]

Recently bought a Glock 34 Gen4. This is my very first Glock. I bought it for IDPA and am very happy with it. But I must admit, when I first took it apart (takes about 5 seconds to field strip, which is awesome!) it looked cheaply made.

It is very accurate and it functioned fairly well right out of the box. But the stock trigger was horrible IMHO, and a meticulous "25 cent trigger job" of polishing and deburring REALLY helped the stock trigger (would have been perfect for a carry gun). Because this is a competition gun, I eventually went with an aftermarket 3.5 lb trigger kit, and again, after some polishing and buffing, the trigger is now smoooooooth and breaks at 3.5 lbs. Plus, the gun has not had any malfunctions in 2k rounds....

[ScottM]

Rather than the .25 trigger job, I find shooting about 1000 rounds through a Glock is the best trigger job that can be performed.

[ejes]

If what he told me is accurate, more Gen4 Glocks have been coming in for repair than Gen3's. This may indicate that Glock hasn't perfected the mim process yet. What parts are already mim? You have me curious now.

QKShooter mentioned them in his post. Again, unless you are hearing about parts breakage or uncharacteristic premature wear, the problems with Gen4 is not MIM; it is design flaw in the "updated/upgraded" parts they decided to change such as the recoil spring assemblies, extractors and ejectors. I might add that those problems seem to have been addressed and corrected for the vast majority of the part at this point. I should point out that I'm not a brand loyalist in any sense; I have lots of different guns, but I've been around G's a lot due to my work.

Another word on armorers. I've been an armorer for many platforms and brands. Armorers are nothing special. They serve a valuable purpose as long as their purpose is kept in perspective because you don't want someone who is relatively ignorant to the internal workings of a firearm fiddling around in there. There are some armorers out there that are quite knowledgeable, others that only know what they are told, and more that think they know more than they are told. They took a class to learn how to fix relatively simple problems with firearms to quickly put them back in service and to lessen the burden on the company/factory for these simple repairs. I think too many view them as something next to gunsmiths, engineers, and metallurgists, and that armorers sometimes like to perpetuate that view out of egotism.


Engineers and machinists I've talked to have told me that small MIM parts can actually have superior strength to forged or machined-from-billet parts IF the MIM is done properly. The problem is that when it is done to that level, even though it is less expensive, companies will tinker to see how much "less expensive" they can get away with to widen the profit margin. So, the company doing it still has to have some integrity and not become greedy enough to cut manufacturing corners and reduce quality past the point that is acceptable. Where is that point? Well, you can only test so much "in-house, so you don't truly know until those parts are out in the field and being used. As QKShooter correctly eluded to, there was a company back in the 90's that did this and parts did break. It gave MIM a serious stigma that permeates firearms lore to this day, and for all intents and purposes, MIM is really a 4 letter word.

[Chevy-SS]

Rather than the .25 trigger job, I find shooting about 1000 rounds through a Glock is the best trigger job that can be performed.

I realize a lot of folks feel the same way as you. However, I examined the various trigger components under a magnifying glass, and there were some areas that, IMHO, simply never would have seated themselves properly through extended break-in. There were some burrs that simply has to be removed by hand. However, the gun would still function properly. And I do agree that the trigger would likely feel better over time as the parts mated during break-in......

-

[Cuda66]

I really wouldn't be afraid of the G20g4. Most people don't have issues with their gen4's; those that do, tend to get them fixed and fixed quick with minimal hassle by Glock.

Absolute worst case, there are aftermarket parts out there that can replace the MIM parts. Your armorer should know of these, and bea ble to do the work (if you don't feel like doing it yourself).

But, the odds are on your side.

Get the G20g4, and enjoy the heck out of it. I'm considering selling one of my gen3 G21's for a gen4...

[pogo2]

There are still lots of generation 2 Glocks out there, because they hardly ever wear out. I don't think they have any MIM parts. These two were made about 1994 and have untold thousands of rounds through them.

[CDW4ME]

I know this:
I have two generation 2 Glocks I bought new in the 1990's that have been trouble free.
I have older generation 3 Glocks that have also been trouble free.
Those guns would shoot whatever defensive ammo I fed them and gave me the impression that "Glock perfection" was about right.

My lastest two Glocks are late model generation 3 and both have presented me with issues. One is a 26 that threw occasional brass toward my head (totally unacceptable) and would jam on Ranger T +P+ (odd for a 9mm Glock). The other is a 30 SF that would have the 2nd to last round go nose up into the barrel hood when using the 10 round magazine with oversize base and Ranger T 230 gr.
I replaced the extractor on the 26 and tried several types of ammo; finally, I found two rounds that fed & ejected fine and no brass to the head. One round is my handload using a 115 Hornady XTP loaded to 1,157 fps (out of the 26) and the Federal HST 124 +P.
I did not have an issue with the flush fitting 9 round magazine I bought for the 30 SF, so I bought a couple more. The recoil produced by 230 gr. Ranger T and the flush fitting magazine were not condusive to quick follow up shots, so again I tried my own handload; the 185 Hornady XTP coming out of the 30 SF at 970 fps is a good mix of controlability and power. Most importantly, that handload has never jamed / misfed in the model 30 regardless of the magazine used.

Glock has ruined "Glock perfection".
Recent Glocks are kind of like 1911's
Some people get one and it works 100% out of the box, other people buy the same thing and it doesn't.
It may or may not work with the supplied magazine.
It could be ammo picky.
Now there is MIM in both, although for enough $,$$$ it can be avoided when buying a new 1911.

Thank goodness for my lightly used older Glocks.